Defending locks in a maul

[Zebra1922]

Why do referees allow a defending lock in a maul to reach over with both arms to try and pull in the ball carrier? By definition if they are using both arms they cannot be bound. Seems to be accepted practice at professional level but I don’t understand why its OK.

Seen for this post in SA vs Wales, but happens in most professional games.

 

[Decorily]

They are otherwise bound into the maul so can free up both arms...ie bound in by teammates and opposition players. I think 'caught in' is the proper term used in law.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Law 16.10
All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Being caught in the maul happens to the initial ball carrier all the time, otherwise almost every maul set up from a line out should be penalised against the initial ball carrier when they pass it back and stand up to block opposition players from moving through.

 

[didds]

Why do referees allow a defending lock in a maul to reach over with both arms to try and pull in the ball carrier? By definition if they are using both arms they cannot be bound. Seems to be accepted practice at professional level but I don’t understand why its OK.

Seen for this post in SA vs Wales, but happens in most professional games.

You can be caught in a maul ie the maul has formed around you - then you do not need to be bound.